Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 23:40:13 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Cc: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk>, src-committers@freebsd.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r216230 - head/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs Message-ID: <AANLkTi=T1cytC2HO-2MxXjNJQ22AtGX2iVikpw1a8eFV@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4CFD6575.5040202@freebsd.org> References: <201012061218.oB6CI3oW032770@svn.freebsd.org> <20101206211607.GA65110@muon.cran.org.uk> <AANLkTinPLsTa=S6pvxG55rK%2B3MBVRmKbha5bSZSN6w6G@mail.gmail.com> <201012061700.49219.jhb@freebsd.org> <4CFD6575.5040202@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6 December 2010 23:36, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> wrote: > on 07/12/2010 00:00 John Baldwin said the following: >> It is probably the 4K logical sector size that needs to >> come up with a new field, not vice versa. > > Just expressing my overall confusion - 4K would be the physical size and = 512 > would be the logical one? =C2=A0My thinking: on a platter it's a 4K secto= r, but drive > supports data addressing with 512 byte granularity. Yes, the whole thing is overly complicated by the need for 512/4096 kludge; The cleanest would be to simply go with One True Sector Size (4 KiB) for the drive which support it but that would break compatibility all over the place (including booting). Upthread I've advocated adding an "physsectorsize" field for this, but basically I'm fine either way.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=T1cytC2HO-2MxXjNJQ22AtGX2iVikpw1a8eFV>